Houston-based Sex Addicts Anonymous knows the lesson well: For those caught in the Bubble, lust has no limits

Carnes, a certified addiction specialist, is credited with creating the nation's first inpatient facility for sex addicts, in Minneapolis in the late 1970s. He is now the clinical director for sexual disorders at The Meadows, a clinic outside Phoenix.

In 1983, he published Out of the Shadows, which anyone in SAA can quote verbatim. He pioneered the study, and now he's at the forefront of the movement to get his area of expertise in the DSM.

Last October, scientists and therapists swarmed to Vanderbilt University in Nashville for the annual conference of the National Council on Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity. Vanderbilt is ground zero for research into how sexual behavior affects the brain's pleasure center. A team of psychiatrists there is loading male test subjects into MRIs. When the doctors show the men a picture of naked women, Carnes says, their frontal lobes illuminate. Show them a picture of actual intercourse, and the whole brain glows.

Jill Hadley Hooper

Carnes's book became a bible for sex addicts.

Patrick Carnes, Ph.D.

The research is an important part of building a case to bring to the American Psychiatric Association, which is working on the 2008 edition of the DSM. First, the experts have to agree on a diagnostic and interviewing protocol for their studies. Then they test the hell out of them.

Right now, little is known about which pathways are involved in sexual arousal, says Reid Finlayson, a psychiatrist on the Vanderbilt team. Until there's a clear answer, there will be critics.

"Everybody can think of addiction with a chemical but it's pretty hard to think of a behavior that we've all been associated with having the same kind of power," he says.

Tom Wise, a physician at Johns Hopkins' Sexual Behavioral Consultation Unit, describes the disorder as sexual compulsion, not addiction, which he says is associated with tolerance and dependence. In this extreme sexual behavior, there is nothing like alcoholism's delirium tremens, the DTs.

"There are a lot of so-called experts that are rushing to judgment and closing the need to study this better," Wise says.

Many experts lump disparate compulsions together as the same addiction, resulting in mistreatment, he says. The guy obsessed with amputee porn may not have the same problem as the woman who spends all night in Internet chat rooms. Different compulsions have to be treated differently.

"It's the last area that's to be researched, that's to be sure," he says. "I think it's because of our shame around sex, our discomfort in talking about it. Physicians aren't even trained much in human sexuality, so they avoid the topics. They feel intrusive. And yet the reality is that for the people that are in SAA, they'll tell you what a brain issue it is because it almost ruined their lives. In many cases, it did."

Andy had the vodka and the garbage bag; now he just needed the pills.

He didn't want to deviate from the recipe he found in the Hemlock Society's Final Exit, courtesy of the Houston Public Library:

1) Crush phenobarbital

2) Mix with vodka

3) Drink solution

4) Put your head in the bag

5) Die.

The 43-year-old professional designer had already revised his will, but he was having trouble getting the barbiturates from his many dealers. Ordinarily they weren't hard to find -- they're sold over the counter in Mexico. Andy didn't tell the dealers what he wanted them for, and he didn't tell his family and friends he was ready to go.

"I'm not a cry-for-help kind of guy," he says, recalling the time he was ready to die.

He was turning into the kind of person he didn't want to be. He was thinking about rape.

After 30 years of indiscriminate sex with men, which culminated in sadomasochistic adult bookstore orgies, Andy was wanting more. He had always wanted the torture aimed his way, but lately he'd been thinking about unleashing it on someone else.

Years before, he had seen Carnes on TV, talking about the ravages of sex addiction. Yeah, he figured, that's me.

But he didn't do anything about it. At that point, he had mastered his second life. He even had a job where he could disappear during the day. Just as he had a recipe for suicide, he had a recipe for relieving stress.

When things became too much at work, or when he was angry, Andy hit the adult bookstores. There were three clusters -- two on I-45 south, just outside the Loop, and one on Telephone Road. He knew the seediest stores in each cluster, the ones where he could find the "bookstore whores." He knew the clerks, the layouts.

He had a protocol before acting out: Everyone had to be identified. He'd have to check the movie booth peepholes for undercover cops, who were the ones sitting in the porno booth and not masturbating. Sometimes the idiots had their arms folded. If there were cops, he'd either move on or wait until they'd cleared.

The bookstore whores didn't lock their doors. Come one, come all. Andy would walk right in and get busy. Blow jobs, mostly, to start with. But it grew from there.

Related Content

With any luck these sleazy scumbags will have the opportunity to meet one of these drunk losers on a road one night and see the damage they're causing. Keep the cops in line, but this legal trickery is getting people killed.

It's a fact, you can't always trust the cops. Google 'Kasi Beutel' from Santa Barbara, CA. She was a shining star on the DUI team until she arrested an investigative reporter. Mr. Flood may not be popular, but he's helping train cops to play by the book. And that really is good for us all.

It makes me happy to know that there are guys like Flood out there that are willing to stand up for our liberties in a court, albeit for a fee. The government's just itching for us to let down our guard and accept these draconian laws so they can take more of our freedoms and rule us like they did in the USSR. The way these laws are written and enforced is insane, and they show that our lawmakers, who swear to uphold the Constitution, apparently don't have to even read the thing over before they take office.

Go Flood, and let's get some rational laws on the books instead of allowing a police state!

In the article, it states that Mr. Flood hasn't defended any cases which resulted in major injury or death. I'm not saying it's every okay to drink and drive, and I certainly NEVER drink and drive, but I do have friends who may have 1 or 2 drinks and are certainly not drunk, that could probably be charged with a DUI if pulled over. I don't see a problem with defending those types of cases.

But what about property damage? I doubt the jury would find it credible that the cop intended to get hit and be hospitalized. The "drunk" is a proven danger on the road and should at least pay for damages and have his license revoked.

When you have a family member killed by an idiot who didn't have the brains or self control not to drive after drinking, then you can tell me that driving under the influence isn't a big deal. I hope these people get hit by one of their clients. I really do. Where I live, we have the harshest DUI laws in the nation. It makes my blood boil to hear people complaining that they got busted for drinking and driving when they should have been responsible enough not to. It's not anyone's fault but your own that you get arrested. I don't care how many drinks you've had, or how less likely you are to be the one causing fatal accidents. That kind of thinking is ignorant,and doesn't make it okay.

Where was this guy when I got my dui?!?!? I lawyered up but with the wrong one. He was buddy buddy with the DA and was not really concerned about fighting my charge. You live what you learn. That is why I don't drink and drive anymore, it was an expensive lesson!

Lord PLEASE forgive me for thinking this, but i can't wait until someone has an opprotunity to sue this attorney for allowing a drunk driver to remain on the streets and kill someone. It would be even better if a drunk driver would hit her, kill someone in her family or someone in the firm! That will be the actual Judgement Day!

Seems like it would be much better use of their time to educate officers the pitfalls they see so that NO ONE gets off and we can stop the madness.

Come on people, this is just an article - freedom of speech, and an interesting one at that. I myself find it informative unlike some of you self-righteous and close minded people. Some of you fail to understand that this could happen to almost anybody. How many of you use cellphones while driving, I see many people driving reckless while they carry a conversation on one. Do you people really believe that some of these officers are always truthful, and that maybe they are not driven by any other motives. I am not condoning the actions of the drivers but I'm glad there is someone keeping the law in check, that's not often the case.

And during Closing Arguments the Judge will usually instruct the Jury that whatever the attorneys SAY is not evidence. That they are to limit their deliberations to the evidence presented and the testimony taken.

Interesting that commentator Mike thinks that the Assistant District Attorneys are "dumb enough to believe them." Obviously he has never dealt with the Harris County District Attorney's Office. They are some of the most highly skilled, well trained trial lawyers in one of the most, if not the most, aggressive DA's Office in the country. They are a lot of things, but "dumb" is not one of them.

More importantly, one of the most valuable things one has as an attorney is his reputation. He has a certain amount of professional equity with each court and each prosecutor that he deals with. If an assistant district attorney catches him in a lie, intentional or because his client was lying to him, she will not believe another word that comes out of his mouth. That is detrimental to both the attorney AND the defendant...and both professionally and from a business stand point, the last thing in the world you want as a lawyer is to be viewed as something less than a straight shooter.

Mike goes on to say that a "witness on this case lied..." How he can be so certain of this not knowing all the facts or testing the veracity of the witness on the day of trial in front of a jury, I'll never know. Apparently he knows better than the six people who were sitting in judgment. But my question is this: how does he know it wasn't the cop that was less than truthful? Does Mike have a predisposition to believe the testimony of police officers rather than average citizens? Does he think they are more truthful than the average Joe Blow just because they have a badge and a gun? One thing I know for sure, Mr. Flood did not "tell" her what to say. We can't. As Officers of the Court we are ethically prohibited from telling a witness what to say...and there are sanctions for such behavior.

Again, easy to pick on but difficult to substantiate once you look at all the facts......

The attorneys do not testify directly, but when they make closing statements, they can make up whatever they want... They will lie to prosecuting attorneys who are dumb enough to believe them.So much for an oath.. A witness on this case lied. Does anyone really think that Flood would have put her on the stand without coaching what to tell her?????

What these negative commentators seem to forget is that drinking and driving IS NOT ILLEGAL! You can still have a glass of wine with dinner in this country and drive yourself home. You can have a glass of champagne at your daughter's wedding reception and not have to call a cab. You can have a beer at your friend's BBQ and not have to have someone pick you up. That is not, and should not be against the law. And if you want to make that illegal, then what you're really asking for is Prohibition...and we all know how well that worked out.

What most people don't understand is that this statute is written so BROADLY, that you could take two benadryl for your allergies and be arrested for DUI if you get behind the wheel. It is a HUGE net that is being cast and it is taking with it a large number of innocent people. People that deserve to be defended by the likes of Tyler Flood.

Remember people, attorneys are not magicians. In nearly all of these cases Mr. Flood was able to convince a jury of 6 reasonable, objective, 3rd party observers that had no vested interest in the case that there was another, reasonable explanation for his client's behavior. You want to get rid of the Jury System? You want to replace with these zealots who have lost loved ones in tragic accidents? Go ahead. But don't call it Justice.

Officer Egdorf, admittedly biased when enforcing DWI laws, stated, "Defense attorneys lie. They lie their asses off. He's the only person in there that's not sworn to tell the truth."

I would like to remind Officer Egdorf and others that attorneys DO NOT TESTIFY; therefore they cannot "tell" the jury anything. They are there to cross-examine and interrogate. They are there to ASK questions, not make statements.

Furthermore, he is mistaken when he says that attorneys are the only ones not sworn to tell the truth in the courtroom. In order to be licensed we must take an oath: an oath that includes being candid with the tribunal (court). In fact, we are the ONLY profession that provides sanctions for not being truthful. We cannot even put on a witness if we know they are going to give false testimony.

I could cite case after case where officers perjured themselves on the stand or obfuscated the truth. But I will not do so. I will simply say this, it is easy to bad mouth lawyers, but I guarantee you if YOU or one of YOUR loved ones was in trouble you'd want someone who would do battle for you and as Mr. Silverman put it, "Tries cases."

I hope, and I say it with all sincerity, that one of your loved ones is hit and maimed by one of your defendants. You are getting repeat offenders off on theatrical talent alone. And I wish the same on all of your fellow DWI lawyers.There is no such things as a first offender DWI. Just a first time CAUGHT DWI.

Was this the biggest portrayal of I�m a douche bag attorney who needs to boost about my wardrobe, and trophy wife because he�s a real small fish in a big pond of legitimate criminal defense attorneys? The article shouldn�t have been headed, �Getting Off� it should have been called �Jerk Off�

Releasing this ridiculous farce of propaganda is irresponsible journalism� and who the hell buys their hair products at CVS?

Though Flood seems obnoxious & conceded throughout this article he is most certainly an essential part of our legal system & probably not a bad representation of it overall. I have dealt with overzealous cops who wanted to arrest me for having one beer, I was lucky I know many others who were not so. I am all for arresting drunk drivers, but I�m also glad theirs people out there defending them.

This guy is a shameless self promoter. My guess is the two positive comments were written by himself. I know lawyers, some of them criminal lawyers, who take their jobs very seriously and help a lot of people in the process. This guy is more interested in representing himself.

These lawyers, and Tyler, defend your constitutional rights. You could get a DWI after one beer, you could get accused of a murder you didn't do. Just because you get accused does not mean your guilty people.

Don't be mad at Tyler Flood, people. Do you really think the people driving after a beer or two are the ones involved fatal car wrecks? But those are the people often getting arrested, charged, and convicted where they're represented by attorneys other than Tyler Flood. It could be you in jail for no reason. And as for the few cases where the driver was "drunk as a skunk," well, if there's no evidence that he was "drunk as a skunk," it's a criminal lawyer's job to argue just that - there's no evidence. That's what defending constitutional liberties and rights is all about. They're your rights too, you know. Respect yourself.

This is the dumbest thing I have ever read, and whoever published this article should be slapped. Try promoting NOT DRINKING AND DRIVING vs. drink and drive and KILL SOMEONE then get out of it with Mr. Flood. What a sad world. Mr Flood- how would you feel if your family were the ones in the car that got plowed by a drunk driver. would you defend them???

...I don't recall driving drunk, or even driving at all, to be a liberty or mentioned at all in the constitution. In fact, driving a motor vehicle on a public-paid road is a privilege (which is why you can be fined for not following the rules), so stop talking nonsense.

And prosecuting attorneys aren't interested in themselves? Cops aren't interested in how they look when an accused walks free?

Attorneys are loaded with ego, but don't think that only applies to defense attorneys. In an adversarial legal system, there is no one trying to prove you innocent except your attorney and your private or attorney's investigator.

There's another dynamic the article fails to mention. Me. I spent lots of time as an attorney's investigator honing my craft. I can think of no case where an arresting officer didn't do at least something wrong. And that's not just on DUI cases either.

I'll tell you a secret; cops lie. They don't want to lose a case and face their superiors or a pissed off DA. There's a pit-bull mentality that forces justice into a corner all for the sake of a conviction. True, there are drunks on the road. But cops frequently take advantage by confusing people who have only taken a beer or a glass of wine at lunch. I don't like drunk drivers much either. But there has to be something and someone who prevents everyone being ground under the wheels of so-called justice. Here's an other secret, there is no justice.

Laws, all laws, are enforced selectively. That's another place a cop and a prosecutor can run afoul of a jury. It's not hard to show their win record supersedes their wish to see justice done. After the first year, my attorney clients never lost a case either.